DHS/ICE seizes domain names of torrent sites

[Elok]

As usual, Wiglaf makes an awesome contribution to the thread

And what makes you think that every one of those represents a lost sale?

Suppose I wouldn't bother buying a Kindle, but will gladly steal one. Is it just the increased production cost of the Kindle that makes that a theft while downloading Galnemer's book is not? I'm kinda leery of the idea that whether or not you're a thief depends to some extent on what a cheap-ass you are.

[DaShi]

I'm a thief for waiting for the games I want to buy to go on sale for 50% or less.

[KrazyHorse]

As usual, Wiglaf makes an awesome contribution to the thread
Suppose I wouldn't bother buying a Kindle, but will gladly steal one. Is it just the increased production cost of the Kindle that makes that a theft while downloading Galnemer's book is not? I'm kinda leery of the idea that whether or not you're a thief depends to some extent on what a cheap-ass you are.

Elok, unless you're going to conflate law and morality, there needs to be some kind of additional rationale for calling copyright/patent violation "wrong".

In the case of theft of a physical object, you've empoverished somebody else in order to enrich yourself. The loss to the other person lies somewhere between the marginal cost of production and the retail price of the object, depending on whether or not you would have purchased the object if you were unable to steal it. For ideas the marginal cost of production (copies of the same idea) is basically 0. The ONLY loss anybody suffers is based on the possibility that you may have bought it from them. If there was literally 0 chance of you doing so, then they HAVE NOT LOST ANYTHING relative to the counterfactual of you not stealing and not purchasing the work.

[Hauldren Collider]

And what makes you think that every one of those represents a lost sale?

The correct answer is that SOME of these people would have bought it instead. Don't pretend it's okay just because some people who are free riders otherwise wouldn't ride.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm a thief for waiting for the games I want to buy to go on sale for 50% or less.

Very good point.

Market segmentation (by time, by added features, by country, etc) is one way that monopolist idea producers attempt to maximize their rents and at the same time minimize the deadweight losses inherent in monopolist production.

All of these issues arise out of the high fixed costs and low marginal costs of production of idea-based products. They are all part and parcel of the same feature.

[KrazyHorse]

The correct answer is that SOME of these people would have bought it instead. Don't pretend it's okay just because some people who are free riders otherwise wouldn't ride.

HC, If you hadn't noticed, I already rejected the moral sentiment that all piracy was okay (espoused by gribbler). I also reject the implication that piracy is naturally immoral in the same way that theft is immoral.

Ideas are public goods. The morality surrounding their production and use is NOT as simple as it is for rival, excludable goods (most things)

[KrazyHorse]

Nobody panic, let's all keep it together here, Krazyhorse is trying to use his economics on us. We knew the day would come but we need to stick to what we know. First of all the simple economics are this: The RIAA spends about $30 million per year on anti-piracy lawsuits. Therefore music piracy does $30 million in damages to the RIAA per year. That is basically nothing because a single Kanye West album, which is like a cultural nuclear weapon that does nothing but set black culture back 40 years, just made $10 million in its first week.

Now would that Kanye album have been produced had there been no piracy? That is the question, Krazyhorse must answer. This is a syllogism I think.

Other than my posts, this is the most astute post of this thread so far (I am not kidding)

However, it raises points I am unwilling to contaminate the thread with until we can get past the childish posturing.

SOMETHING needs to be done to reward idea producers for their work. Piracy and theft of a regular good are not morally equivalent.

Once we get agreement on this, we can move on.

[giblets]

HC, If you hadn't noticed, I already rejected the moral sentiment that all piracy was okay (espoused by gribbler).

Huh?

[KrazyHorse]

Not sure why you think the government should stop people from doing something that doesn't make anyone else worse off.

This.

[giblets]

Not sure why you think the government should stop people from doing something that doesn't make anyone else worse off.

This.

I was asking why HC supports intellectual property, not why it's a good idea. I mean, don't libertarians think the government is only supposed to protect "natural rights" or whatever?

[KrazyHorse]

You predicated the question on the idea that piracy doesn't make anybody else worse off.

That is the point

[Kuciwalker]

Regardless of the morality of copyright violations, government attempts to censor the internet can't really be successful without intolerable levels of state control. This is not something we should be cheering.

edit: along the same lines, this sort of thing seriously undermines our rhetoric against Chinese, Iranian, etc. Internet censorship.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I don't know, Ozzy. Like I said, I'm not an economist.

But it pisses me off royal to watch my wife work her ass off writing novels that are then pirated on Day ****ing One.

you and your wife should take a different view, at least you are gaining an audience, and in that sense this is visibility gained and not sales lost. If there was no pirating most of those "pirates" would never have heard about your wifes work, and you might have just sunk without much sales vs better marketed books by more prominent authors. This way if the work is great, you will make money, as your fans will be buying books etc... so your "pirating" nemesis is actually your fanbase, learn how to make money off them, and not imagine how those are lost sales, instead of being happy that some people are devoting time to the stuff your wife wrote, which they otherwise most certainly would not have done.

"Piracy" is just a different way of market function enabled by new technology, the issue is that the publishers are stuck in 20th century thinking, and are slow to capitalize on new "sales" ie fans spening their time (the most valuable asset here) watching/reading/listening to the fims/books/music... not to mention that they are an equivalizing marketing factor in favour of quality newcomers vs heavliy marketed crap by established players... for sure there are many avenues that you can exploit the fanbase for money... unless there is no fanbase, but if if there is none with piracy, there for sure would not have been one without it.

[Elok]

Elok, unless you're going to conflate law and morality, there needs to be some kind of additional rationale for calling copyright/patent violation "wrong".

In the case of theft of a physical object, you've impoverished somebody else in order to enrich yourself. The loss to the other person lies somewhere between the marginal cost of production and the retail price of the object, depending on whether or not you would have purchased the object if you were unable to steal it. For ideas the marginal cost of production (copies of the same idea) is basically 0. The ONLY loss anybody suffers is based on the possibility that you may have bought it from them. If there was literally 0 chance of you doing so, then they HAVE NOT LOST ANYTHING relative to the counterfactual of you not stealing and not purchasing the work.

As there's no means of determining whether Pirate X would have done anything, it seems a moot point. If you want it enough to take it without the creator's permission, I have no problem with assuming at least some level of loss. Also, I don't see why I can't conflate law and morality, when you seem to be conflating law and economics.

[giblets]

You predicated the question on the idea that piracy doesn't make anybody else worse off.

That is the point

Obviously there are people who would be better off in a world where no one participated in piracy, but if you start considering that a valid argument you're not a libertarian, as far as I can tell. It's like saying everyone would be better off in a world without guns, therefore gun control is justified if it can be demonstrated that it will make people better off. It's a utilitarian sort of argument, and a libertarian might reject it on the grounds that everyone has a right to own a gun as long as they personally don't harm others with it.

Likewise I don't see how a libertarian could accept restrictions on what someone does with their computer, as long as it doesn't directly affect anyone else.